Connect with us

Economy & Market

Cut Cement Carbon

Published

on

Shares

India’s cement sector stands on the threshold of a green transformation — balancing rapid growth with deep decarbonisation. The journey ahead demands innovation across materials, fuels and processes, backed by strong policy and collaboration. ICR explores how industry stakeholders are looking at scaling sustainable solutions fast enough to build a truly Net Zero cement future.

India’s cement industry stands at a pivotal crossroads. As the world’s second largest producer of cement, the country accounts for nearly 8 per cent of global installed capacity. A report by the India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF) mentions that India’s cement production reached approximately 453 million tonnes in FY 2024–25, up from 426.3 million tonnes the previous year, reflecting steady growth driven by infrastructure and housing demand. This scale of activity underpins the nation’s development ambitions — yet it also magnifies the urgency of decarbonisation in a sector that is both energy and carbon intensive.
Globally, cement production is responsible for around 7–8 per cent of total manmade CO2 emissions. According to a 2024 report by the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA), India’s cement sector contributes about 5.8 per cent of the country’s total CO2 emissions, primarily from the calcination process during clinker production and the use of fossil fuels in kilns. The same report notes that Indian producers are targeting a reduction in emission intensity from 0.68 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of cement in 2020 to 0.56 tonnes by 2030, with further improvements expected by 2047. These figures highlight the scale of transformation required even as domestic demand continues to surge.
At the same time, India’s market structure and resource base provide strong foundations for this transition. A report by IBEF highlights that nearly 98 per cent of India’s cement capacity lies in the private sector, supported by abundant limestone reserves and robust investment in new grinding and waste heat recovery capacities. However, achieving growth alongside sustainability will demand a deep shift — one that integrates smarter technology, low carbon material innovations, automation, and carbon capture at scale. The coming decade will test how effectively India can balance the ‘3 Cs’ of decarbonisation: Cut emissions, Cement innovations, and Carbon capture and utilisation.

The policy push
India’s industrial decarbonisation journey is gathering momentum, and the cement sector has become a key focus area. At the heart of the effort is the Perform, Achieve and Trade (PAT) scheme, a market-based instrument implemented under the National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency (NMEEE). A report by the Cement Manufacturers’ Association (CMA) mentions that cement plants in PAT Cycle-I and Cycle-II overshot their energy savings targets by 81.6 per cent and 48.6 per cent respectively, signalling early success in improving energy efficiency.
Dr SB Hegde, Global Industry Expert, says, “Green hydrogen can transform cement production by eliminating the 32 per cent of emissions from burning coal in kilns, cutting ~0.32 million tonnes of CO2 annually for a one million tonne per annum (MTPA) plant (IEA, 2020). Combined with alternatives like fly ash for clinker and carbon capture, it could reduce emissions by 66 per cent to 95 per cent by 2050. Unlike biomass, which some plants use to cut emissions by 10 per cent but struggle with unreliable supply (UltraTech, 2024), hydrogen burns consistently at 1400–1500°C, like a steady flame in a gas stove. India’s National Green Hydrogen Mission (NGHM), targeting 125 GW of renewable energy by 2030, supports this shift (MNRE, 2023).”
In parallel, broader regulatory evolution is underway. According to an article by the Climate Policy Lab, India is set to replace the PAT scheme with the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS) by 2026, covering nine industrial sectors including cement. This shift recognises that simply improving energy efficiency is not sufficient; the industry must move towards intensity and absolute emission targets, a step reinforced by India’s net zero commitment at COP26 for 2070.
Beyond regulatory mandates, industry led initiatives are driving the transition. The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) India and domestic trade bodies are collaborating to embed sustainability practices across the value chain, supporting innovations in blended cements, alternative fuels, and logistics decarbonisation. Such strategic initiatives amplify the policy push and help bridge the gap between regulation and action.

Cutting emissions at the source
In the race to decarbonise, the first frontier for the Indian cement industry lies in boosting energy efficiency across plant operations. Upgrading to six stage preheater kilns, optimising cooler and fan systems, and capturing waste¬ heat recovery (WHR) are all core tactics. A report by the Cement Manufacturers’ Association mentions that the theoretical energy demand for clinker production ranges between 1,650 to 1,800 MJ per tonne of clinker, while drying raw materials adds another 200 to 1,000 MJ per tonne. For manufacturers, that means every percentage point of thermal or electrical energy saved translates directly into lower CO2 emissions — a pragmatic and cost-effective route to ‘cut.’
MM Rathi, Joint President – Power Management, Shree Cement, says, “Innovation is transforming the way cement is produced and used, bringing efficiency, strength, and sustainability together. Modern high efficiency plants now run kilns capable of producing up to 13,500 tonnes of clinker per day. With advanced coolers and pyro systems, they achieve energy use as low as 680 kilocalories per kilogram of heat and just 42 kilowatt-hours of power per tonne of clinker. By capturing waste heat, these plants are also able to generate 30–35 kilowatt-hours of electricity per tonne, bringing the net power requirement down to only 7–12 kilowatt-hours—a major step forward in energy efficiency.”
Reduction of the clinker to cement ratio remains a strategic lever in lowering both process emissions (from limestone calcination) and thermal fuel consumption. In India, the average ‘clinker factor’ is estimated at about 0.73 (i.e., 73 per cent of cement is clinker) as per recent modelling. According to a study by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), India’s average clinker ratio stands at 0.73 compared with a global average of 0.77. If India’s cement sector can move towards ~0.56 by 2070 as envisioned in some roadmap scenarios, the implication for emissions reduction is substantial. This shift is supported by the increasing uptake of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) and innovative binder systems.
Alternative raw materials such as fly ash, slag and calcined clay offer meaningful pathways to absorb clinker substitution and lower embedded emissions. For instance, ternary blends that combine limestone with calcined clay or slag are gaining traction in India. One recent paper notes that a calcined clay limestone composite cement (LC3) can cut the CO2 footprint by around 30 per cent compared to conventional Portland cement. Moreover, the standards in India (for example IS 18189) now allow ternary blends with calcined clay limestone up to about 20 per cent replacement. These materials not only help reduce the clinker content but also align resource use and circular economy imperatives.
Dr Avijit Mondal, Scientist, NTPC Energy Technology Research Alliance (NETRA), states, “The cement industry’s decarbonisation journey is both a technological and policy challenge. A mix of regulatory frameworks, carbon pricing, green financing and stakeholder collaboration will be essential to accelerate adoption of the 3Cs. For India, which is expected to remain the second largest producer and consumer of cement, the 3Cs framework aligns with national goals of Net Zero by 2070. As power and cement sectors increasingly converge through ash utilisation, renewable integration, and CCU the scope for cross industry partnerships is immense.”
Finally, the intertwining of material and energy efficiency is mediated through smarter process controls, automation and digitalisation — especially in grinding, raw mix preparation and kiln operations. Real time monitoring of power, kiln stability, clinker quality and alternative fuel admixture enables plants to operate closer to their thermodynamic minima. While the technology and cost curve are improving, what remains critical is industry wide scale up of these practices across India’s 600 plus integrated and grinding only units. The challenge is to ensure that improved efficiency and lower clinker factors translate into tangible CO2 savings in the near term, rather than being deferred into ‘future promise’.

Alternative fuels and co-processing
The traditional reliance on coal and petroleum coke in kiln operations is giving way to more sustainable fuel streams, as the Indian cement industry embraces alternative fuels and co-processing of waste. Within the energy intensive process of cement manufacture, where combustion can account for 30 per cent to 40 per cent of CO2 emissions, substituting fossil fuels with refuse derived fuel (RDF), biomass and industrial byproducts offers a compelling route to ‘cut’. A recent industry overview notes that only around 4 per cent of total energy input in the Indian cement industry currently comes from alternative fuels — up from about 0.6 per cent in 2010. This underscores that while the option is technically proven, scaling remains a major hurdle.
Raju Ramchandran, Senior Vice President and Head Manufacturing – Eastern Region, Safety and Sustainability, Nuvoco Vistas, says, “The journey to decarbonise cement and concrete touches every link in the value chain — from sourcing raw materials to producing clinker, from pouring concrete on construction sites to rethinking design with reuse, recycling and 3D printing in mind. Each stage offers an opportunity to reduce emissions through innovation and collaboration.”
The practical application of RDF and biomass in kiln operations is increasingly supported by policy and infrastructure. For instance, in the State of Karnataka the updated waste management rules require that cement plants within a 400 km radius of an RDF facility meet at least 15 per cent of their fuel needs through RDF by 2031. This shift not only reduces dependence on imported fossil fuels but also converts municipal solid waste and non-recyclable combustible fractions into high value fuel inputs — advancing circular economy objectives. However, the path is not without challenge: the heterogeneity in waste fuel properties can disrupt feeding systems in kilns, and the logistics of sourcing, processing and transporting fuels remain complex.
Ulhas Parlikar, Director MRAI and Global Consultant, explains, “The co-processing strategy of AFRs in India supports national waste management goals such as reducing landfill, incineration of hazardous and municipal wastes, and enabling safe resource recovery. Cement kilns are uniquely positioned to help address the country’s growing urban and industrial waste challenge, aligning climate goals and circular economy priorities. Many plants manufacturing clinker in India that belong to Adani Group, UltraTech, Dalmia, Shree, JK, JK Lakshmi, Nuvoco Vista, Vicat, Heidelberg, Ramco, KCP, Nagarjuna, Chettinad and others are operating at a reasonable scale of AFR utilisation. Some of these plants have even achieved a TSR level of more than 35 per cent. Some of these cement plants that have reached the higher levels of chlorine have also set up the chlorine bypass systems.”
Beyond substitution, co-processing waste as fuel and raw material unlocks additional value. For example, industrial byproducts such as tyre derived fuel (TDF) or processed biomass residues may replace traditional coal-based energy inputs, while providing safe disposal routes for otherwise difficult waste. The dual benefit of waste to energy and emission reduction is clearly recognised in global industry studies. Nevertheless, tapping this potential at scale in India requires standardised fuel quality, consistent supply chains, and investment in pre-processing infrastructure — all of which are emerging priorities for the next decade.

Innovating low carbon binders
Global and Indian research and industry activity around low carbon binders has moved from laboratory curiosity to commercial pilot and early rollout. LC3 and other ternary blends are receiving particular attention because they offer substantial clinker substitution without compromising strength or durability. A report by the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) notes that new low carbon binders such as LC3 can reduce embodied CO2 by around 30 per cent to 40 per cent compared with ordinary Portland cement, and several Indian manufacturers have announced plans to commercialise these formulations. Complementary market studies also point to brisk growth in ‘green cement’ demand in India — the India green cement market was valued in the low billions of US dollars in 2024 and is projected to grow at a mid-single digit CAGR through the decade. These figures underpin why major projects and infrastructure clients are starting to specify low carbon cements as part of sustainability procurement.
Gaurav K Mathur, Director and Chief Executive, Global Technical Services, opines, “Energy consumption is a significant concern in cement production, with a substantial portion of it attributed to the friction and heat generated by moving components in machinery. Lubrication management plays a pivotal role in optimising energy efficiency within all manufacturing plants. Advanced lubricants with superior friction reducing properties contribute to lower energy consumption by minimising resistance in moving parts and ultimately play important role in machine reliability.”
Geopolymer cements and alkali activated binders present another promising avenue, particularly where industrial byproducts (fly ash, GGBS) are locally abundant. Recent Indian academic work has showcased geopolymer mixes that can cut CO2 emissions by a large margin — in some laboratory studies by as much as 50 per cent to 80 per cent relative to conventional OPC, depending on the precursor and activator chemistry. While these numbers are impressive, practical deployment requires overcoming standardisation, supply chain and curing practice barriers; nevertheless, pilot projects and institutional testbeds in India are accelerating technology readiness and building the case for wider acceptance in structural applications.
Jigar Shah, Head – Application Engineering, ACM SBU, Henkel Adhesive Technologies India says, “Ash buildup—especially in high humidity environments—is a recurring challenge for maintenance teams. It clings to the inner walls of hoppers and silos, chokes flow paths, and forces shutdowns that no one has time for. And when the monsoon rolls in, the problem only intensifies. Ash particles are fine, abrasive and hygroscopic. They absorb moisture from the air, especially during the rainy season, and form stubborn layers on metal surfaces. Over time, this buildup narrows flow paths, increases system pressure, and eventually brings operations to
a standstill.”
Technology innovation in formulations goes hand-in-hand with process and digital innovations on the plant floor. Automation, advanced process control (APC), and AI driven optimisation are enabling plants to maintain kiln stability with higher rates of alternative raw materials and fuels, while improving energy efficiency and reducing reject rates. According to the Cement Manufacturers’ Association, predictive maintenance and real time monitoring can recover 5 per cent to 20 per cent of productive capacity lost to poor maintenance and can materially reduce fuel and power consumption when integrated with WHR and kiln control systems. Likewise, industry consultancy analyses show that AI enabled predictive maintenance can cut downtime by 20 per cent to 30 per cent and trim maintenance costs by 10 per cent to 15 per cent, savings that translate directly into lower operational CO2 intensity.
Taken together, these technological strands — new binder chemistries, expanded use of SCMs, and smarter plant operations — create a mutually reinforcing pathway to lower carbon intensity. Yet scale up remains the central test: moving from pilot batches of LC3 and geopolymer concrete to sustained commercial production requires changes in standards, investment in calcination and grinding lines optimised for alternative blends, and digitised quality control regimes. If Indian producers can synchronise material innovation with automation and process control, the industry can materially bend the emissions curve while meeting the country’s infrastructure needs.

CCUS: The next frontier
Carbon capture is rapidly moving from theory to pilot scale reality for the cement sector, driven by a suite of technologies tailored to the industry’s unique emission profile. Options under active development include chemical solvent scrubbing (amine systems), oxy fuel combustion (which produces a CO2 rich flue gas stream), solid sorbents, calcium looping and indirect calcination that decouple calcination from fuel combustion — each with different energy, space and integration requirements for an existing kiln. Several international demonstration projects have shown the technical feasibility of these routes, and the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) places CCUS as a central lever that could account for a large share of sectoral emission reductions by mid-century.
Nathan Ashcroft, Director, Low Carbon Solutions Energy and Resources, Stantec, says, “Cement plants are built for durability and efficiency, not for future retrofits. Most were not designed with spare land for absorbers, ducting or compression units. Nor with the energy integration needs of capture systems in mind. Retrofitting CCS into these existing layouts presents a series of non-trivial challenges. Reliability also weighs heavily in the discussion. Cement production runs continuously, and any disruption has significant economic consequences. A CCS retrofit typically requires tie-ins to stacks and gas flows that can only be completed during planned shutdowns. Even once operational, the capture system must demonstrate high availability. Otherwise, producers may face the dual cost of capture downtime and exposure to carbon taxes or penalties, depending on jurisdiction.”
India has begun to pilot a variety of capture concepts and small-scale test sites to assess techno economic practicality and downstream utilisation pathways. Recent initiatives include five test sites announced in 2025 designed to capture CO2 from cement production for conversion into synthetic fuels, construction aggregates and other products, and government industry workshops have highlighted pilot projects such as amine based and biological capture trials (including photobioreactor approaches) under development at research facilities and industrial partners. A report by GCCA India and a NITI Aayog linked workshop note that Indian pilots remain modest in capacity but are important for building local data on capture efficiency, impurity handling and integration costs.
Dr Yogendra Kanitkar, VP R&D, Pi Green Innovations, explains, “Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) technologies are emerging as a critical lever for achieving deep emission cuts, particularly since process emissions are chemically unavoidable. Post combustion amine scrubbing using solvents like monoethanolamine (MEA) remains the most mature option, with capture efficiencies between 90 per cent to 99 per cent demonstrated at pilot scale. However, drawbacks include energy penalties that require 15 per cent 30 per cent of plant output for solvent regeneration, as well as costs for retrofitting and long term corrosion management (Heidelberg Materials 2025). Oxyfuel combustion has been tested internationally, producing concentrated CO2 laden flue gas, though the high cost of pure oxygen production impedes deployment in India.”
Global experience — particularly from Europe and Japan — is shaping India’s deployment roadmap by underlining two lessons: first, CCUS for cement is capital intensive and needs coordinated value chain thinking (capture, transport, storage or utilisation), often requiring public support and cross sector infrastructure; second, technology selection is context specific. Large European demonstrations such as the Brevik project in Norway (where a cement plant was retrofitted with capture and linked to offshore storage under the Longship initiative) and Japan’s government backed “Advanced CCS” projects are instructive on financing models, regulatory frameworks and clustering opportunities for shared CO2 transport and storage. These projects show that commercial scale CCUS in cement is achievable but hinges on policy certainty, fiscal support and the emergence of CO2 transport and storage hubs — lessons India is already factoring into its pilot planning.

Green logistics
Efficient logistics is becoming a critical lever for decarbonisation in the cement sector. In India, road transport still dominates finished cement distribution, with approximately 71 per cent to 72 per cent of cement moved by road and only around 25 per cent by rail (with waterways making up about 3 per cent to 4 per cent). Emissions associated with distribution have grown — one study found that in 2018-19, road transport accounted for 87 per cent of distribution related CO2 emissions for cement despite carrying about 62 per cent of the load. By contrast, rail borne cement accounted for 35 per cent of tonnage but only 13 per cent of emissions. Shifting more freight to rail and bulk logistics (for example by using specialised wagons and terminals) therefore presents a clear pathway to lowering the carbon footprint beyond the plant gate.
Ashwini Khunte, Regional Head – Sales and Marketing, Martin Engineering, elaborates, “Even though the entire cement operation depends on conveyor performance, the importance of clean belts to overall productivity is rarely understood or prioritised by busy plant maintenance teams. Fortunately help is at hand, with specialists from Martin Engineering in available to help Indian cement producers to identify the root causes of their pain points and recommend innovative solutions that are proven to work.”
Beyond mode shift, the industry is also embracing bulk handling and efficient packaging systems to optimise supply chain carbon performance. Bulk cement movements (rather than bagged) reduce multiple handling, mitigate dust losses, and permit more efficient transport and storage. A trade body note highlights that bulk movement of cement in India grew at a compound annual rate of 15 per cent to 20 per cent between 2014-15 and 2019-20. By building more rail silo to plant configurations, deploying dedicated bulk terminals and investing in larger capacity rail tankers, the industry is better positioned to reduce per tonne logistics emissions.

Industry collaboration and circular economy
Collaboration between cement manufacturers, municipal authorities and waste management firms is rapidly becoming a cornerstone of circular economy practices in India. For example, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) has launched a Waste Material Exchange platform which enables cement plants to access industrial and urban waste streams as alternative raw materials and fuels.
Jignesh Kundaria, CEO and Director, Fornnax, says, “Based on extensive R&D and on-site analysis at numerous cement plants, we have identified and addressed the key bottlenecks hindering AFR adoption in India. These challenges include the absence of a standardised process layout, the difficulty of handling high moisture or contaminated waste and a heavy reliance on imported equipment that lacks customisation for Indian conditions. Other issues include long lead times for spares, high maintenance costs for imported secondary shredders and inconsistent output from equipment that performs only primary or secondary shredding.”
India’s cement sector is increasingly ‘diverting waste materials from landfill via partnerships and collaborations’ and thereby reducing both disposal costs and input material emissions. One study estimates that the Indian cement industry could reduce its dependence on virgin raw materials by up to 20 per cent to 30 per cent through systematic utilisation of waste derived feedstocks and byproducts under circular economy models. Such collaborative efforts not only cut resource extraction and emissions but also build a symbiotic industrial ecosystem where the waste output of one sector becomes the input for another.
Olli Hänninen, Owner and Co-Founder, Moviator Oy, states, “Decarbonising cement will not happen overnight. It will take imagination, cross sector collaboration and new standards that reward permanent carbon binding. But the tools are already here — from smarter slag processing to direct CO2 mineralisation. Moviator’s work in refining steel skulls and utilising slag demonstrates that circular, low carbon materials are not science fiction. They are emerging now, one pilot and partnership at a time.”
Despite the promise, the road to full circularity is paved with challenges that require coordination across multiple stakeholders. Material recovery infrastructure, consistent waste feedstock quality, and transparent liability frameworks need to be developed in tandem with policy incentives and industry buy in. A systematic review in 2025 emphasises that while interest in circular economy practices in the cement sector is ‘substantially increasing’ (with an annual publication growth of 23.4 per cent) it also warns that ‘scaling remains constrained by regulatory, socio-economic and logistical barriers. In response, a number of Indian cement companies have signed MoUs with local municipal bodies and waste management firms to secure streams of municipal solid waste, construction and demolition debris and industrial byproducts — signalling a shift from isolated pilots to ecosystem level collaboration.

Towards Net Zero cement
As the Indian cement industry charts its trajectory toward net zero emissions, the horizon offers both urgency and opportunity. By 2030, the global roadmap for cement envisages a reduction in CO2 intensity to roughly 0.45 tonnes per tonne of cement — a level that Indian producers, if aligned with the 3 Cs of decarbonisation (Cut emissions, Cement innovations, Carbon capture and utilisation), could realistically aim for. By 2050, the ambition in many roadmaps is to hit near zero operational emissions, with residual emissions offset or captured — a target that places technological adoption, scale up and financing at the heart of the transition.
Achieving these milestones will demand more than incremental change. Policy frameworks must strengthen carbon pricing or trading mechanisms that include cement, fiscal support for CCUS and alternative binder investments, regulatory push for low carbon procurement, and infrastructure for CO2 transport and storage are essential enablers. Simultaneously, private investment from both domestic firms and global players must flow into retrofits of vintage plants, digital and automation upgrades, large scale alternative fuel/coprocessing systems
and full-scale carbon capture installations. The confluence of innovation, structured finance and regulatory certainty will determine how smoothly the industry migrates from pilot phase ambition to full scale deployment.
Ultimately, intent and action must remain in sync. Indian producers possess competitive strength in large scale, strong domestic market growth, and a rich resource base. With the accelerating uptake of low clinker cements, automation across operations and strategic collaborations for waste to resource value chains, the critical ingredients are already in play. What remains is execution at pace and scale — delivering the decarbonised cement that India’s infrastructure vision demands, while ensuring that the industry contributes positively to the nation’s climate and sustainability goals.

– Kanika Mathur

Concrete

Protect Your Margins

Published

on

By

Shares

In a research-backed article, Dr SB Hegde examines why carbon-adjusted profitability and LC3 will decide the next set of winners in cement manufacturing.

The Indian cement industry has achieved world-class operational efficiency through lower specific energy consumption, high plant utilisation and a reduced average clinker factor of approximately 67.5 per cent. These traditional measures of operational excellence remain essential. However, they are no longer sufficient. Carbon now carries a measurable financial cost under India’s Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS) and under European carbon markets. Future leadership will be defined by carbon-adjusted profitability, the ability to generate strong returns while systematically lowering the carbon intensity of every ton sold.
Limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) offers a practical, scalable pathway to achieve this dual objective. By replacing up to 50 per cent of clinker with calcined clay and limestone, LC3 can reduce CO2 emissions by 30–40 per cent while delivering comparable or superior durability performance.
This article examines the technical foundations of LC3, European industrial practices, the emerging Indian carbon market and a concrete roadmap for Indian companies to embed carbon-adjusted metrics and LC3 into daily operations, incentives and commercial strategy.

Limits of traditional operational excellence
For many years, plant performance has been judged primarily by five indicators: specific heat consumption, specific power consumption, kiln and mill utilisation, clinker factor and overall equipment effectiveness. These metrics drove continuous improvement and helped the industry reduce energy use and increase the share of blended cement. Three structural changes have rendered them incomplete as sole measures of success.
First, carbon now carries a real or opportunity cost. Plants that improve volume or lower cash cost while raising or stagnating emissions intensity create a hidden liability that will surface as CCTS trading matures and as green procurement expands.
Second, lower-carbon products such as LC3 and high-performance blended cements are creating differentiated market segments. Customers in infrastructure, real estate and export-oriented construction are beginning to specify embodied-carbon limits.
Third, investors and lenders increasingly treat carbon intensity as a financial risk factor. Traditional KPIs can mask the divergence between short-term cash profit and long-term carbon-adjusted value.

What is carbon-adjusted profitability?
Carbon-adjusted profitability evaluates normal profit after explicit adjustment for carbon performance. A practical expression is:
Carbon-Adjusted EBITDA = Conventional EBITDA – Carbon Cost + Green Premium Income
Carbon cost may be an internal carbon price, the actual cost of purchasing Carbon Credit Certificates under CCTS, or the opportunity cost of high emissions relative to peers. Green premium income arises when customers pay more for verified lower-carbon cement or when the company sells surplus credits. Tracking both conventional and carbon-adjusted profit side-by-side gives management a clearer picture of value creation under evolving market rules.

Table 1. Traditional KPIs versus Carbon-Adjusted Leadership Metrics
Traditional Focus New Leadership Metric Why It Matters
Specific energy consumption Emissions intensity (kg CO2/t cement) Directly linked to future CCTS and CBAM costs
Kiln utilisation Carbon-adjusted contribution margin Reveals true value of incremental volume
Clinker factor Share of lower-carbon products sold (incl. LC3) Measures commercial success of the transition
Power cost per tonne Effective carbon cost per tonne sold Expose hidden liabilities
Absolute EBITDA Carbon-adjusted EBITDA + green premium Aligning profit with future market reality

LC3: Technical foundations and performance advantages
LC3 is a ternary blended cement that typically combines approximately 50 per cent clinker, 30 per cent calcined clay, 15 per cent limestone and 5 per cent gypsum (the classic LC3-50 formulation). The decisive technical advantage is that clay is calcined at 700–850 °C, far below the 1,450 °C required for clinker production. This lower temperature, together with the substantial reduction in clinker content, delivers CO2 reductions of 30–40 per cent relative to ordinary Portland cement (OPC).
Chemistry is synergistic. Calcined kaolinitic clay (metakaolin) reacts with calcium hydroxide from clinker hydration and with limestone to form additional C-A-S-H gel and carboaluminate phases. These phases densify the microstructure, reduce porosity and improve durability.
Field experience shows superior resistance to chloride ingress, sulphate attack and alkali–silica reaction. Early-age strength can match OPC with high-reactivity clays; later-age strengths routinely meet 42.5 and 52.5 grade requirements.
Importantly, LC3 does not require high-purity kaolin. Clays with 40 per cent or even lower kaolinite content can be activated successfully, expanding raw-material availability across India. Calcination can use adapted rotary kilns or dedicated flash calciners, making the technology compatible with existing plant infrastructure and far less capital-intensive than carbon capture.
Economic analyses show that LC3 can be produced at equal or lower cost than OPC in many locations because of reduced energy demand and cheaper clay. Life-cycle assessments consistently report 30–40 per cent lower embodied CO2 per tonne of cement.
Table 2. Comparative profile: OPC versus LC3-50
Parameter OPC LC3-50
Typical clinker content ~95 per cent ~50 per cent
CO2 emissions (relative) Baseline (≈0.85 t CO2/t cement process + fuel) 30–40 per cent lower
Clay calcination temperature Not applicable 700–850 °C
Key hydration products C-S-H, portlandite, ettringite C-A-S-H + carboaluminates
Chloride & sulphate resistance Good Superior
Production cost potential Baseline Equal or lower in most locations
Infrastructure compatibility Existing High (minor adaptations)

In India, commercial adoption has begun in earnest. JK Cement commenced the first commercial production of LC3 in the Indian subcontinent at its Mangrol plant in Rajasthan in 2025 under BIS standard IS 18189.
By early 2026, approximately 2,000 tonnes had been produced and sold, avoiding an estimated 500 tonnes of CO2. JK Lakshmi Cement followed with commercial launch of its Green PRO LC3 grade from the Jaykaypuram plant. As of mid-2026, two producers are supplying LC3 to the market. The first large-scale infrastructure application is the Noida International Airport (Jewar), where LC3 was used in the runway and a building complex, demonstrating full constructability and performance under demanding conditions. These early volumes are still small relative to national cement demand, but they mark the critical transition from pilot to commercial reality. Companies that scale capacity now will be positioned to capture both CCTS credits and emerging green-procurement demand.

Why the shift is accelerating
According to the World Bank’s State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2026, direct carbon pricing now covers nearly 30 per cent of global greenhouse-gas emissions and generated more than US$107 billion in public revenue in 2025. The average global carbon price stands at approximately US$21 per tonne, although regional prices vary widely.
In Europe, the EU ETS price has traded near €80–85 per tonen in mid-2026. Free allocation for cement is being withdrawn in parallel with CBAM. European producers therefore face a clear signal: every tonne of avoided CO2 improves both compliance and competitiveness. Holcim has scaled calcined-clay production, including Europe’s first dedicated line at Saint-Pierre-la-Cour (France) and a second line in the Czech Republic (2026). Heidelberg Materials, Cementir (FUTURECEM) and others have commercialised low-clinker calcined-clay blends across multiple markets, showing that carbon-adjusted profitability is already reshaping capital allocation in the world’s most mature carbon market.India’s CCTS is now operational. Binding emission intensity targets apply to 186 cement facilities for FY 2025–26 and FY 2026–27. Average required reductions for integrated plants are modest (around 2.7 per cent by FY 2027), yet the direction is clear.
Trading of Carbon Credit Certificates is expected in the second half of 2026, with early prices likely in the `800–1,500 per tonne range. Plants that outperform targets can sell credits; those that underperform must buy them or face compensation. Cement is well positioned to be a net supplier of credits if clinker factor continues to fall through LC3 and other low-clinker systems.

Way forward for India
India starts from a strong baseline, world-class energy efficiency and a clinker factor already lower than the global average. The next competitive frontier is the deliberate reduction of process emissions through clinker substitution at scale. LC3 is uniquely suited to Indian conditions because suitable clays are widely distributed, the technology fits existing kiln and grinding infrastructure, and the resulting product can meet the performance demands of both infrastructure and building construction.
A practical national pathway contains five interlocking elements:

  1. Standards and acceptance: Accelerated finalisation and promotion of BIS specifications for calcined-clay and limestone–calcined-clay cements will remove a key barrier to commercial uptake. Alignment with European practice (EN 197-5) can facilitate knowledge transfer and export readiness.
  2. Supply-chain development: Investment in flash calcination capacity and systematic characterisation of regional clay deposits will secure reliable, low-cost feedstock. Existing rotary kilns can be adapted for initial volumes while dedicated calciners are built.
  3. Incentive alignment: Part of variable compensation for plant managers, sales teams and senior leadership should be linked to emissions intensity reduction and to the volume of lower-carbon products (including LC3) sold. Without this link, traditional volume and cost targets will continue to dominate behaviour.
  4. Product-level carbon accounting: Reliable measurement of emissions intensity at the individual cement grade level, supported by third-party verification where required, is essential for both CCTS compliance and credible green claims.
  5. Demand-side pull: Green public procurement policies that specify maximum embodied-carbon thresholds for major infrastructure projects will create a predictable market for LC3 and other low-carbon cements, accelerating scale and cost reduction.
    Companies that treat LC3 as a strategic product line rather than a niche offering will be better positioned to generate surplus Carbon Credit Certificates, capture any emerging green premium, and protect margins as carbon costs rise.

Organisational changes required
Technical capability alone is insufficient. Three organisational shifts are required.
Daily management: Emissions intensity must appear on the same daily and monthly dashboards as heat consumption, power consumption and utilization. Plant reviews should examine both conventional and carbon-adjusted results.
Incentives: A meaningful portion of bonuses for plant heads, technical teams and sales leadership should be tied to lower emissions intensity and successful commercialisation of LC3 and other low-carbon grades.
Commercial approach: Sales teams need clear volume and pricing targets for lower-carbon products, supported by technical service that helps customers specify and place the material correctly. Without commercial pull, excellent technical performance remains under-utilised.

Table 3. Three-stage roadmap to carbon-adjusted profitability
Time Horizon Priority Actions Expected Outcome
Next 12 months Add emissions intensity to plant dashboards; establish internal carbon price; initiate LC3 pilot production and customer trials Visibility and early organisational learning
12–24 months Revise incentive systems; scale LC3 and other low-carbon grades to key accounts; secure third-party verification capability People and sales aligned with carbon goals
24–36 months Embed carbon-adjusted metrics in board reporting and capital allocation; expand calcined-clay capacity Full system integration and competitive advantage

Questions senior leaders should ask
Boards can accelerate the transition by insisting on answers to a short list of questions:
• Is our carbon-adjusted profit improving, stable or declining relative to conventional EBITDA?
• Did recent volume growth improve or worsen our emissions intensity?
• What share of sales already comes from lower-carbon products, including LC3, and what is the trajectory?
• How exposed is our capital expenditure plan to rising carbon costs under CCTS and potential CBAM-related requirements?
• Do our incentive systems still reward only volume and cost, or have they been updated to include carbon performance?
Treating carbon with the same seriousness as energy cost or kiln utilization does not diminish operational excellence; it expands the definition of excellence to match the new competitive reality.

Looking ahead
By 2030 the gap between leading and lagging cement companies will not be decided by who records the lowest specific heat consumption. It will be decided by who delivers the strongest carbon-adjusted profits.
Absolute emissions may still rise as national production grows. That is not the issue. Companies that reduce intensity year after year and successfully sell cleaner products will pull ahead in both domestic and export markets. Those that do not will fall behind, even if their traditional efficiency numbers look strong.
Operational excellence built the Indian cement industry. It remains the foundation. It is no longer the complete picture. Carbon-adjusted profitability is the clearer measure of success.
LC3 is not a distant technology. It is available now. It cuts CO3 by 30–40 per cent, works with existing plants, and is already in commercial production in India. Companies that treat it as a strategic product, not a pilot, will protect their margins and generate tradable credits.
Leaders who act now will place carbon metrics on daily dashboards, link incentives to intensity reduction and LC3 sales, invest in calcined-clay capacity, and build commercial capability to sell lower-carbon products. They will shape the next chapter of the industry.

References

  1. World Bank. (2026). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2026. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
  2. International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP). (2026). India Carbon Credit Trading Scheme – Status and Coverage. Berlin: ICAP.
  3. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change / Bureau of Energy Efficiency. (2025). Greenhouse Gases Emission Intensity Target Rules, 2025. New Delhi: Government of India.
  4. Scrivener, K., Martirena, F., Bishnoi, S., & Maity, S. (2018). Calcined clay limestone cements (LC3). Cement and Concrete Research, 114, 49–56.
  5. RMI. (2024). The Business Case for LC3. Rocky Mountain Institute.
  6. European Commission. (2026). EU Emissions Trading System – Allowance Price Data and Free Allocation Phase-out Schedule. Brussels.
  7. Holcim. (2025–2026). Scaling Calcined Clay for Sustainable Building – Corporate Updates on European and Latin American Capacity. Zurich: Holcim Ltd.
  8. LC3 Project / EPFL. (2026). LC3 – A Guide to Best Practices for Scalable, Affordable and Sustainable Low-Carbon Building. Lausanne: École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.
  9. Business Today / Industry Reports. (2026). First Large-Scale LC3 Application at Noida International Airport, Jewar. New Delhi.
  10. NITI Aayog / Industry Analyses. (2026). Roadmap and Baseline Performance Indicators for the Indian Cement Sector. New Delhi.
  11. Springer / Innovative Infrastructure Solutions. (2026). LC3 Systems: A Review of Chemistry, Performance, Durability and Sustainability toward Market Adoption.
  12. Cementir Holding / Industry Sources. (2025–2026). FUTURECEM and Related Low-Clinker Technologies in Europe.
  13. Climate Risk Horizons & Independent Analyses. (2026). Assessment of Emission Intensity Targets under India’s CCTS for Cement and Other Hard-to-Abate Sectors.
  14. GCCA / TERI. (Various years). Decarbonization Roadmaps for the Indian Cement Industry.
  15. EN 197-5:2021. Cement – Part 5: Portland-composite cement CEM II/C-M and Composite cement CEM VI. European Committee for Standardization.

Continue Reading

Concrete

More Oversight Makes Cement Plants Less Safe

Published

on

By

Shares

Dijam Panigrahi makes a counterintuitive but data-backed argument that routing every sensor alert through human approval does not make cement plants safer.

India’s cement industry has spent the last two years wiring kilns, mills and coolers with sensors and automated control systems, and the safety case for doing so is strong on paper. Contract workers still make up the majority of the industry’s workforce, and fatal accidents remain a recurring problem. The Indian National Cement Workers Federation has noted that around 83 per cent of workers in the sector hold precarious positions, a fact that resurfaced after an oxygen cylinder explosion killed three contract workers at a plant in Chhattisgarh.
Industry tallies compiled by IndustriALL found cement plants recorded at least seventeen accidents in one year with 21 workers killed, and ten accidents the following year with nine killed, most of them contract staff. Automated monitoring, in theory, closes that gap. A sensor never gets complacent and never skips a check because a shift is short staffed.
However, plants that respond by routing every anomaly reading to a person for approval are quietly building a system that fails the same way understaffing does. When operators receive dozens of flagged deviations a shift, most of them minor, they learn a simple lesson: the fastest way through the queue is to approve without reading closely. The safety benefit disappears, not because the technology failed, but because the humans supervising it adapted to the volume.

Why alerts get ignored
A study cited by manufacturing technology publisher Applied SmartFactory found more than 95 per cent of alarms in a semiconductor fab were low priority, and only about 4 per cent ever triggered an action, with just 100 out of 5,000 alarms accounting for 70 per cent of all alarm activity. The mechanism is the same whether the trigger is a vibration sensor or an AI model flagging a kiln temperature swing. Once the ratio of noise to signal crosses a threshold, workers stop treating the system as a decision aid and start treating it as a formality to clear.
The scale of AI deployment underway makes this more than a theoretical risk. Stanford’s 2026 AI Index Report found organisational adoption of AI has reached 88 per cent, even as documented AI incidents rose to 362 in 2025, up sharply from 233 the year before, according to analysis of the report. The Index also found only about a third of organisations have adopted a formal governance framework, with NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework cited by 33 per cent and ISO/IEC 42001 cited by 36 per cent.
Most manufacturers are deploying monitoring systems faster than they are building the judgment for when a flagged event actually needs a person’s attention. In India, plants run by JK Cement have begun pairing CCTV feeds with AI to define safe zones around heavy machinery, a promising direction that still depends on operators trusting and reading the alerts the system generates.

A three-tier model for cement plant
The fix is not less monitoring or more monitoring. It is classifying decisions by risk and by novelty, rather than treating human oversight as a single switch that is either on or off. A workable model sorts factory floor events into three tiers.
The first tier, proceed, covers deviations the plant has seen before that fall within known safe bounds, such as a kiln feed rate adjustment within an established range. These should run without a stop for approval, because routing them to a person only trains that person to click through.
The second tier, pause, covers events that are unusual but not yet dangerous, such as a vibration reading trending toward a limit or a fuel blend shifting outside its typical mix. These warrant a brief human check before the system proceeds, giving an operator the chance to apply judgment the model does not yet have.
The third tier, escalate, covers events that are both high risk and unfamiliar, such as a pressure reading combined with a temperature spike that has no close precedent in the plant’s history. These should stop the process entirely and require a decision from someone with the authority to shut down a line.

Who should set the threshold
Where these tiers get drawn matters as much as the framework itself. Threshold setting is frequently handed to the vendor supplying the monitoring software or to a plant’s IT department, both of which understand the technology but not the specific tolerances of a given kiln, mill or line. Operations staff, who know that a particular grinding unit runs hotter under monsoon humidity or that a calciner behaves differently after a refractory reline, are better positioned to calibrate what counts as routine on their own equipment.
Handing threshold ownership to operations does not remove IT or vendors from the process, but it puts the calibration decision closest to the people who live with its consequences on the floor.

Signals that oversight is actually working
A few concrete indicators reveal whether a monitoring setup is functioning as intended or simply providing the appearance of safety. The escalation rate over time is the first: a rate that stays flat or climbs slowly as operations mature is healthy, while one that spikes and then falls sharply often means operators have started overriding the system rather than engaging with it. Time to resolution is the second: escalations that take progressively longer to close suggest fatigue or confusion about ownership, not diligence. The third, and most telling, is how accurate the system’s own uncertainty estimates turn out to be, meaning whether events flagged as high risk actually correlated with real incidents, and whether events waved through stayed incident free. A system whose escalations do not track with actual outcomes trains operators toward the same complacency that unmonitored equipment produces.
None of this argues against automation in Indian cement manufacturing, where a labor structure built on contract work and a track record of serious accidents make better monitoring an urgent need. It argues for treating human oversight as a design problem with three distinct settings, rather than a single
dial turned up whenever a plant wants to look safer on paper.

About the author:
Dijam Panigrahi, Co-founder and COO, GridRaster, is a spatial computing platform for industrial enterprises and manufacturers.

Continue Reading

Concrete

The biggest gap arises from inconsistent leadership

Published

on

By

Shares

Anuj Kumar Mathur, Safety Consultant, stresses on the importance of closing the enduring gap between what safety systems say on paper and what actually happens on the plant floor.

Robust safety manuals, certified PPE and digital monitoring systems mean little if the culture on the plant floor does not enforce them. Safety Consultant Anuj Kumar Mathur has spent enough time in high-risk operations to know precisely where that gap opens and why it persists. In this exclusive interaction, he suggests feasible ways to strengthen the safety culture at a manufacturing unit.

Having led safety across high-risk fuel operations, what lessons can the cement industry adopt to strengthen its safety culture beyond regulatory compliance?
Beyond regulatory compliance, the cement industry should embed visible leadership commitment, proactive risk assessment, process safety management, strong contractor control, near-miss learning, and employee engagement to build a resilient safety culture that prioritises prevention, operational discipline and continuous improvement over mere compliance.

As cement plants become increasingly automated and digitally connected, how should organisations redefine their approach to process safety and operational risk?
As cement plants become increasingly automated, organisations should integrate process safety with digital risk management by strengthening cybersecurity, real-time monitoring, predictive maintenance, management of change and workforce competency to ensure safe, reliable and resilient operations.

What are the most common gaps between having robust safety systems on paper and achieving consistent safety performance on the ground?
The biggest gap arises from inconsistent leadership commitment on ground, weak safety culture, inadequate supervision, poor risk communication, insufficient workforce engagement specially, ineffective training and failure to translate procedures into disciplined execution, accountability and continuous monitoring at the operational level.

How can cement manufacturers better integrate contractor safety, leadership accountability and workforce behaviour to build a truly zero-harm workplace?
Manufacturers can achieve a zero-harm workplace by enforcing uniform safety standards for employees and contractors, strengthening leadership accountability, promoting proactive hazard reporting, enhancing competency through continuous training and fostering a culture where safe behaviour is recognised, expected and consistently practiced

What emerging technologies and safety practices do you believe will have the greatest impact on risk prevention in cement manufacturing over the next decade?
Artificial intelligence, IoT-enabled monitoring, predictive analytics, digital twins, wearable safety devices, drones, robotics and advanced process automation will significantly enhance hazard detection, predictive maintenance, real-time risk management, and worker protection, enabling safer and more resilient cement manufacturing.
IoT-enabled monitoring is the use of interconnected sensors and smart devices to continuously collect, transmit and analyse real-time data from equipment, processes and the work environment. This enables early detection of unsafe conditions, equipment failures, or abnormal operating parameters, allowing timely intervention before incidents occur.
In cement manufacturing, IoT-enabled monitoring can be used for:
• Monitoring kiln, crusher, and mill temperatures, pressures, and vibrations.
• Detecting overheating of bearings and motors to prevent failures.
• Monitoring dust concentration, gas leaks (CO, SO2, NOx), and oxygen levels.
• Tracking conveyor belt alignment and condition.
• Monitoring structural health of silos and
storage facilities.
• Tracking worker location and exposure to hazardous environments using wearable devices.
• Providing real-time alerts and predictive maintenance recommendations.


Benefits:
• Early hazard detection
• Reduced equipment downtime
• Improved process safety and reliability
• Lower maintenance costs
• Enhanced regulatory compliance
• Better decision-making through real-time data and analytics
In simple terms, IoT-enabled monitoring transforms periodic manual inspections into continuous, real-time surveillance of plant safety and equipment health.

Continue Reading

Video Thumbnail

    SIGN-UP FOR OUR GENERAL NEWSLETTER


    Trending News

    SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEWSLETTER

     

    Don't miss out on valuable insights and opportunities to connect with like minded professionals.

     


      This will close in 0 seconds